Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 27 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Wuppertal_-_Feuerwache_Waldeckstraße_04_ies.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Feuer- und Rettungswache Waldeckstraße in Wuppertal. By User:Ies --Atamari 11:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose sorry, for me insufficient quality: not geocoded, no eglish file description, German description insufficient (no "Feuerwache" noticeable on photo), photo contains advertisement for bauhaus ([image page requirements #4]) and I personally don't understand the sense of the motive at all --J. Lunau 13:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMHO, it is an interesting play with simple geometric shapes (lines and circle), geocode is not necessary for QI and file has description in one language (could be better, but as far I can see from other photos it is a detail of the building), the logo of the company is not IMHO a advertishment, although I find it a bit disturbing. Although it is only 3 Mpix, it is not very sharp (but I don't expect more from a point and shoot from 2004), so   Neutral. I wish for a discussion. --C messier 12:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea. But not really sharp, some noise, minor CA, minor perspective problem. And: Lens distortion. A photo with such geometrical composition must be perfectly corrected. Not fixable imho. -- Smial 10:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 06:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Mannerstråhleska huset 2015 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Building Mannerstråhleska huset, Arboga, Sweden.--Vivo 14:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • *   Comment Insufficient quality. Shame that the blue car is there - but worse is the white stripe also in the right side. --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Oh, I didn't see that against a white background. Great thanks for noticing! --Vivo 22:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Now that the white stripe is fixed we can discuss it. --Villy Fink Isaksen 05:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is sharp and seems to be well exposed. But rather tight crop and the blue car is disturbing the composition. Main issue: lots of chroma noise. Look e.g. at the rain gutters, which have colorful artifacts. -- Smial 09:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 06:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Fossil-P9163314.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination fossile fish --Ermell 18:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Until the fossil fish is identified. --C messier 14:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC) OK, now, but title and categories can be improved. --C messier 07:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose same as C messier: Photo lacks of an accurate description (fish not identified, not geocoded (where was fish found, in which museum is it shown or is it maybe private collection...)--J. Lunau 10:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support For the specimen is identified, see description page (Rhacolepis buccaulis), and the locality (Santana Formation, Ceara, Brazil) is given. No more reason to oppose, I think. --Llez 17:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Identification there now. Good enough for me.Crisco 1492 00:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 06:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal_-_Stadthalle_02_ies.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stadthalle in Wuppertal. By User:Ies --Atamari 18:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Perspective, tilted --Pudelek 08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    Now is better --Pudelek (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Pudelek: New version of this image created. --Atamari 17:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)   Done
  •   Comment let's discuss --Ralf Roletschek 20:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality now for me. The entrance of that hall is more attractive.--Ermell 09:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 06:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)